Member Info for LIBERTY2

There has been positive tones from the banking sector in recent results, better than expected profits / strong NIMs. Reported on Bloomberg today that there is rapidly growing global interest in Europes banks with an eye on profit forecasts and generally low valuations. CBG fits into this nicely.

I expect Winterflood has seen a strong quarter based on the back of the market volatility resulting in increased trading volume. Be interesting to see if they have monopolised on this and manage to push this arm of the business back into profit.

May update will be interesting.

The ‘chid’ character is absolutely essential in a properly functioning market. Having enough ‘chids’ in the market allowed me to buy CBG at £2.20 a few months ago.

It would just make for a more informative bull / bear discussion if the bear could offer more factual, informed comment. Relentless pessimism whilst also maintaining a long position in another exposed company will have to do though I guess.

Enjoy your weekend bears / bulls.

A share buyback should have similar effects on your gain as an investor when compared to dividend being paid, albeit with some different tax treatment. I agree with others that at the current SP levels, if CBG did find themselves in a position to either pay a dividend or execute a buyback scheme, the buyback would offer better gains for shareholders, they could significantly reduce the float at these levels.

I would however also like to see handsome dividends return in the medium term - personal preference.

This is all a big if of course - we are optimistically hoping CBG find themselves in a position to do either, this is not guaranteed in the short term.

I believe he is referring to management / board buying stock.

Its more prudent to look at historical transactions, buying / selling habits. There has not been a significant insider holding of CBG at any point which I can see. Not all management teams are hungry investors, others are just conservative folk who work for a conservative bank.

Unusual late trades listed after close (one reported from previous day). System catching up?

Pineapple - ''this is like saying that all the racing tipsters know more than people actually laying horses to lose. the longs have to invest the money they are given, thats your 70%. they know next to nothing, they are following a set of rules. on the other hand the shorts do not have to bet at all. when they do it is the wise that take note''

This only applies if you are assuming the 70% of longs are index or some other type of fund investing in a wider market. This would be incorrect. Yes there are index fund holders in the shareholding, however a large percentage of those holdings are made-up of direct investment type institutions. Note how the holding did not alter much during the FTSE250 exit / re-entry. So by your logic, the longs taking positions recently 'do not need to bet at all', but they are still choosing to.

Whats troubling you about that? The reported holdings are around 9%, 13m shares, split between different subsidiaries of Aberdeen.

Total available shares to the market are around 146m (float), 13m approx of which are owned by Aberdeen.

For somebody who places such immense weight on the presence of 'shorts', it shows an extremely evident bias, or ignorance, when they choose to ignore the presence of Institutional 'longs'.

If your investment decisions are based around looking at institutions investment behaviour for guidance, why choose to ignore the 70% of reported longs in this company by Institutional investors, the same guys, albeit much bigger, wealthier and 'in the know' as you like to say, than the 4% of reported shorts.

I repeat - Institutional Investors make up over 70% of the reported long holdings in this company, and they have been actively adding recently - this is NOT including the ' ill-informed sheep on this forum', as you also like to say.

Only an extreme negative bias would create such a blinding logic to see one side of this and not the other. Negative bias are fine to have, everyone is welcome to their opinion - but come on, lets just make these posts and opinions fact based for a while.

Regardless of what big / small, long / short investments there are in CBG - it means very little at the end of the day. There will be some clarity in a few months, CBG has a good chance of taking a spanking with a fine, it will sting for a while, then it will get over it and move on. The share price reflects this scenario, it has been made very clear for some time.

All the best.

Morning Chid,

A cynic could atleast do their homework and see that Winterflood has unfortunately been losing money for several years for the group, and is well outside of their vision for a centre focused business around their profitable core model.

Your posts would carry more weight if they were at all accurate in their fundamentals.

All the best.

Report that several interested parties have approached CBG with a view to acquiring Winterflood. It has not been confirmed that CBG is looking to sell. If they were, it would be further streamlining of the business model toward the profitable and most longstanding banking / lending core.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/cmc-chief-lord-cruddas-in-40m-raid-on-broker-winterflood-13350966

Given the complexity, nuance, far reaching consequences and the fact this case was shoe-horned into a busy trial schedule, I would take the suggestion of July as realistic. Maybe something in June, under promise over deliver, see no reason to expect it would be sooner.

There are also ongoing cases elsewhere which could impact any subsequent FCA scheme to factor into timelines for meaningful clarity for the group, nothing set in stone, could be many months.

Again - long term view, next week or October doesn’t really matter does it. CBG is still bringing in £10m+ a month in profit. £200m+ of retained earnings sat collecting interest - good position to be in.

Likewise - my bullish, half-educated, internet chat board opinion is that CBG is a gift at £2.XX.

Ive reached this level of conviction based on a 15+ year personal dealing with the company, I understand its business model, I know its strengths, I fully understand the nature of the court case after dozens of hours of research, I have a personal view of the likely outcome and a ‘broad’ view of the potential impacts on CBG in all events.

This leaves me in a position where I can buy a sizeable share of this company and sit on it with a ‘forever stock’ view. I deviate very rarely from a passive index fund investment portfolio - this being one of the rare occasions.

A long term horizon makes the weekly noise entertainment rather than panic - the conviction allows me to accept the risk for what it is, if it wins it wins big, if it loses, well I understood the risks.

All the best

Runner - its not a question of being re-educated by others on a specific stock, from your posting history it appears a deeper look at your goals are needed, in terms of holding horizons and personal convictions.

‘Buying and happy to hold’ one day followed by panicked cashing in the following day needs to be examined - this trading pattern shouldn’t exist. Other peoples biased opinions on an internet chat board (bullish or bearish) only paint a fraction of the story, often an uneducated one - you need to satisfy yourself on a company to the point you are rock solid in the convictions even in the face of short term distractions.

If you do not understand a business, its fundamentals, its risks, or do not wish to spend the many hours finding out this the best a private investor can, then often the index funds are a far more comfortable long term bet which you do not feel inclined to interfere with too often - personal experience.

All the best.

Https://youtu.be/OAVfYLGWPuY?si=Z3FupBdri0oE0S5n

Impartial analysis following the SC case by Quadrant Chambers. Last section of video is their predictions based on the proceedings.

Broadly speaking they conclude the result will heavily favour the banks. Of course, only their opinion.

Stumpy - for conversation sake:

You have spoken about ‘246’ for weeks now. During that time you could have bought at 260ish several times and ridden a rise to 320 / 330, which given you talk about trading and taking profits regularly would be a good return. You have also spoken about how at 246 there are very considerable future profits to be made in holding this.

Is the 5% between 260 and 246 really significant enough to miss out on several 20% rises for day trading, or the potential to miss out on a buy and hold at that level for the significant profits you allude to?

Interested to hear how others view these things.

One would assume ‘case imploding’ etc is in relation to the current speaker, KC on behalf of respondents. Positive for CBG.

Trying to keep up with proceedings in Costa Rica at the moment - how are things looking for those that have tuned in?

Don't speak too soon - plenty potential volatility ahead over the next few months. Good to see the direction for now.

For those less familiar with the matter, the SC site has now been updated with the issues which will be argued over.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0157

CBG will be looking to argue primarily that the car dealer, does not owe a Disinterested Duty to the customer. If they can prove this, the case against CBG falls apart.

If it is found that a DI is owed by the dealer, it then goes to the next step of looking to distance the lender from the blame, and negate the application of the bribery element. It was found to be the lender at fault for the brokers failure to disclose in this case.

In the case of CBG, the element of the fidicuary is not entirely why they were found at fault. The fidicuary element in the strict sense of the word came into play with regards the FirstRand cases which had 'partial or half-secret disclosure'. The pivotal point is the Disinterested Duty, which was a legal principle the CoA concocted in an earlier unrelated case, Wood v Commercial in 2021. It is entirely possible that the SC view the relatively new concept of Disinterested Duty as problematic and scrap it from the law book, as the highest court they can do this - in which case it would then be a matter of proving a fidicuary duty was owed which is a higher legal bar and more challenging for a claimant to prove.

Knot - have you worked in an overturn of the decision in Wood v Commercial to your conclusion on the outcome?

Consolidating my thoughts at the weekend again..